User talk:L1AM
Start up So, congratulations, you're a bureaucrat! I think we should start by outlining our policies before letting others edit. We can port and then modify ones from Wikipedia. I think that most of the policies should be in effect. I have thrown up a lot of articles that are obviosly necessary, but except for things we certainly need I don't think we should make any others beside templates and PhilWiki explanatory pages. I'm working on the logo, I'm thinking ToT with a nice ring around it, like the staff belt, and brands and such. if you want to do one too, then we can see which one works better and run with it. I think that the brands might actually be intellectual property, so be careful. Donbas 11:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC) :Sweet! I'm excited. --L1AM 06:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC) He Liam, could I get your AIM SN, so that we can chat, along with Mike. WE kind of need to coordinate our doings, and also so we can develop the policies, etc.. Donbas 00:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC) :I somehow don't have it. Send it to nsf2105@columbia.edu, sometimes my gmail address bounces things. Donbas 05:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Images Yeah I noticed that too. I'm not sure how to configure anything, since the software is not under my control. I'll email the support people. Donbas 15:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Main Page Just out of curiosity, why are you shifting the main page to "Philwiki" - I had intended that to be the article that is about Philwiki, as opposed to the mission satement and our spiel at "Philwiki:About". Besides, I would like to avoid a redirect at the main page. Other than that, the new color is awesome. Why aren't the articles clear, so the whole page looks brown? Donbas 13:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Conference I would like to repeat the conference we had at 8PM PST, or whenever Lost is over. Let me know if the time is good. Donbas 00:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Philwiki / Philwiki:About So. Philwiki should contain information about major internet resources, right? Well Philwiki will be one of them. Therefore it must be in the knowledgebase. But Philwiki must have its own opportunity to explain itself in a more thorough way. Look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia:About. They overlap, but the about one is a little more POV and written as part of the explanation. It's more technical, and has less history. They are redundant, but it is somewhat helpful. We can talk about it at the meeting. Wanna put it on the agenda? Stuff I like the Be bold page you did. Nice and tight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donbas (talk • ) 13:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC }) Inquiry: Activity, Administration, Interest A number of questions: :1. Are you, in any way, still active in the general Wiki community? :2. Are you still interested in contributing actively to Philwiki? :3. Are there any projects that are ongoing in relation to this Wiki? I am leaving this on all three current Philwiki Administrators' talk pages due to collective inactivity since May 2006. My apologies if I seem accusatory or hostile; I am simply endeavoring to get an understanding of this Wiki's current status. Auguststorm1945 23:55, February 22, 2010 (UTC)